Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing. It does not say whether this mutates state, consumes resources, requires ownership of the city, is reversible, or how idempotency is handled — all critical for an unannotated write-shaped action.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The text is short, but shortness here reflects under-specification rather than economy. The one substantive element — the REST endpoint reference — is not actionable for an MCP agent and occupies a slot that should hold purpose or behavioral detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an unannotated, mutating, two-parameter tool with no output schema and no documented return values, the description leaves every question unanswered. Nothing tells the agent what a successful build yields, what failures look like, or how the action integrates with the many sibling action tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters, and the description does not compensate at all: city_id and idempotency_key are never mentioned or explained. The meaning of idempotency_key (format, scope, reuse window) is entirely undocumented, and since required city_id is the only anchor, an agent cannot tell what identifies the build target.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description restates the tool name ('build') with a game brand ('Agent City Wars action build') but never says what is being built — a building, a unit, a structure — or what the action costs or requires. The parenthetical pointing at 'POST /api/build' is a circular reference that adds no explanatory content and does not distinguish it from siblings like research, train_assign, or install_ram.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for adjacent actions. An agent is left to infer from the name alone that this is a city-development action, with no prerequisites or eligibility conditions given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.